That was quite an interesting read! Looks like this whole "Promised Land" notion is malleable depending upon the aspirations of the writers and political realities.
Keep in mind, borders in the ancient world were not as precise and absolute as they are today. They also didn't have maps good enough for such borders. So this question doesn't necessarily have a more specific answer.
His number of “true fans”, if he had any, would be so low that it doesn’t matter. The guy is just living on an entirely different planet mentally. 99.9% of people who are within the realm of normalcy would be put off by him.
I think what you are describing is typical for those who were raised within strict religious households only to later rebel against it by going completely in the other direction. This mindset that being a proper Christians means that one should just not be a normal human being is quite frankly ridiculous. Didn’t Jesus say that his yoke is easy and his burden is light? How can that be true if believers have to follow a bunch of rules that go well beyond what is required by the Golden Rule?
I wouldnt say my household was strict it was more just something that was always on my mind and it became kind of nice to not have that happen any more I guess
So your proposal would have to be voted for as “other”? I’m with you. But there are other options for one state than a one person one vote democracy. Federated solutions, two states one country models, and so on. Limited rights institutionalizes apartheid; “transfer” is expulsion of millions of people from their homes and homeland=a war crime; two state solution is unworkable (unless you expelled the settlers, swapped lands and gave the Palestinians more and connected them all to Jordan and Egypt with free borders, somewhat impracticable at this point). You can still be a Zionist and support Justice and freedom for Palestinians. Most Zionists, if they agree on anything, believe that any of the solutions to give freedom and Justice to all Palestinians in their own land will result in an existential threat to their state and society. It’s not hard to see that point either.
This is probably a silly question but does the red stand for "controlled by North Vietnam and its allies"? I know that in 1974, the North had almost won.
What exactly are "orthodox Christian beliefs"? Even supposed "orthodox Christians" don't completely agree on what those beliefs are! As long as your family members are treating you well and following the Golden Rule, I would just let them be.
If you are truly committed to celibacy before marriage, something that not all Christians believe in, you better find a partner who is willing to be celibate with you. Otherwise, you and your partner will just be frustrated. Just common sense!
Beliefs should be evaluated based on their consequences. What are the consequences of believing that "most people aren't responsible for the bulk of their behavior"?
Something I have wondered is whether it is possible to be a "true" follower of Christ while at the same time considering much of the Old Testament to be traditional Hebrew mythology and folklore. Can the God described in the New Testament really be the same God that commanded Abraham to murder his son?
No, I’m saying that Israel is already being sanctioned (you said it wasn’t so I had to correct this error). And I am saying that while BDS is not the cause of the Arab sanctions on Israel, BDS would like to expand the sanctions and have other countries join. And this would be bad for the world.
Objection. Sustained. Irrelevant. I asked you to discuss the proposal on the merits. Terms like "collective punishment" and "war crimes" are not merits-based arguments, they are simply conclusions and accusations that are simply supposed to be assumed.
Collective punishment is forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention genius! It is also against basic human decency. But then again, it is not like you give a damn about either international humanitarian law or basic human decency as evident in your post.
You want divine intervention to have a girl leave her relationship and go with you. Doesn't seem like you have her interests in mind. Leave her alone and go find someone else.
Actually, they're not banning anything. They're requesting that ALL people, not just poor and middle class, be responsible for having sex. Be responsible for your actions. Is it your position that poor and middle class people aren't capable of responsibility or accountability for their actions? Are you claiming that poor and middle-class people are only capable of following what Democrats want? Why do you claim poor and middle-class people have no agency of their own? Do you believe poor and middle-class people can not think for themselves? See, there's the problem with the progressive democrat left. They feel that poor and middle-class people can not think for themselves. And are incapable of self-control and are not able to be responsible or accountable for what they do. Why are progressive Democrats so elitists to believe only their policies work? Even when the undeniable proof lays with holding people responsible and accountable for their actions.
Are you sympathetic overall to people who engage in vigilantism? Just think about whether you would really want to live in a world where people can take the law into their own hands just because they morally disapprove of what others are doing. There is a reason why those who murder abortion providers are seen as extremists even by most anti-abortion people.
I am confused. Do you actually want the age of consent to be 18? In most jurisdictions that have such an age of consent, 19 year olds would not be able to have sex with 14 or 15 year olds without it being considered illegal. There isn't really as much room for flexibility when the legal age of consent to sexual activity is the same as the age of legal adulthood in most countries.
Many white Christians are used to being the face of America so to speak. They don't like the prospect of having to share the country with people who look different, speak a different language, and follow a different culture.
I used to fully buy into the idea that sex is only for man-woman marriage myself. But as I did my own research, I came to the conclusion that the cultural context which motivated the anti-fornication messages in the Bible is very different from the cultural context of today. Back in biblical times, it was not very common for people to date and have relationships with others before deciding to marry them. But, in the modern day, you basically have to go through the whole dating and relationship process if you want to get married unless you come from a cultural background like I do (Asian Indian Christian) where you don't. 95-99% of the time, this involves sexual activity. Since things have changed so much in the past 2000 years, maybe all the anti-fornication messages in the Bible have to be interpreted differently. That said, if you do decide to have sex, be sure to use protection. Also be aware that in some states, you or your potential partner are below the age of consent so you can end up in legal trouble if you act on your natural urges.
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”
That is from the Old Testament, isn't it? Based on what happened at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the apostles significantly reduced the amount of rules that believers had to follow. As a result, most of Mosaic Law was no longer applicable for new converts. If most of the Old Testament laws were invalidated in order to not burden the new converts, why can't the whole "no sex before man-woman marriage" standard be invalidated? After all, it is a standard that hardly anyone can meet in this day and age.
You don't want to play that game because many American states also have an HDI lower than Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates lol. The UAE is 0.911 and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia is 0.900. If the UAE was also divided by regions I am sure some would be much higher.
If you ask me, there is nothing wrong with listening to secular music at all. Limiting yourself to religious music just reduces your exposure to reality for no real benefit aside from seeming "holier".
How federal is a country like Russia anyways?
How is this determined? Seems quite subjective.
Him and Nick Fuentes would fit more in Afghanistan right now. When are they going to start packing their bags?
There are different traditions in the Bible about the Promised Land’s borders. See the following article by Dr. Steven DiMattei:
That was quite an interesting read! Looks like this whole "Promised Land" notion is malleable depending upon the aspirations of the writers and political realities.
Keep in mind, borders in the ancient world were not as precise and absolute as they are today. They also didn't have maps good enough for such borders. So this question doesn't necessarily have a more specific answer.
That must be why all the maps of the "Promised Land" can't really agree on its exact boundaries. Thanks for the clarification!
His number of “true fans”, if he had any, would be so low that it doesn’t matter. The guy is just living on an entirely different planet mentally. 99.9% of people who are within the realm of normalcy would be put off by him.
I think what you are describing is typical for those who were raised within strict religious households only to later rebel against it by going completely in the other direction. This mindset that being a proper Christians means that one should just not be a normal human being is quite frankly ridiculous. Didn’t Jesus say that his yoke is easy and his burden is light? How can that be true if believers have to follow a bunch of rules that go well beyond what is required by the Golden Rule?
I wouldnt say my household was strict it was more just something that was always on my mind and it became kind of nice to not have that happen any more I guess
Thanks for the clarification!
So your proposal would have to be voted for as “other”? I’m with you. But there are other options for one state than a one person one vote democracy. Federated solutions, two states one country models, and so on. Limited rights institutionalizes apartheid; “transfer” is expulsion of millions of people from their homes and homeland=a war crime; two state solution is unworkable (unless you expelled the settlers, swapped lands and gave the Palestinians more and connected them all to Jordan and Egypt with free borders, somewhat impracticable at this point). You can still be a Zionist and support Justice and freedom for Palestinians. Most Zionists, if they agree on anything, believe that any of the solutions to give freedom and Justice to all Palestinians in their own land will result in an existential threat to their state and society. It’s not hard to see that point either.
" Population transfers happen all the time and often for the betterment of all involved."
" My view is that any fair and peaceful solution would and will be held hostage by extremists and that will ruin everything. Just like Yugoslavia… "
This is probably a silly question but does the red stand for "controlled by North Vietnam and its allies"? I know that in 1974, the North had almost won.
What exactly are "orthodox Christian beliefs"? Even supposed "orthodox Christians" don't completely agree on what those beliefs are! As long as your family members are treating you well and following the Golden Rule, I would just let them be.
What a shock! Seriously?!
If you are truly committed to celibacy before marriage, something that not all Christians believe in, you better find a partner who is willing to be celibate with you. Otherwise, you and your partner will just be frustrated. Just common sense!
If you read what I wrote, I didn't claim that we can't make any choices. I very explicitly made claims to the contrary.
Beliefs should be evaluated based on their consequences. What are the consequences of believing that "most people aren't responsible for the bulk of their behavior"?
Something I have wondered is whether it is possible to be a "true" follower of Christ while at the same time considering much of the Old Testament to be traditional Hebrew mythology and folklore. Can the God described in the New Testament really be the same God that commanded Abraham to murder his son?
No, I’m saying that Israel is already being sanctioned (you said it wasn’t so I had to correct this error). And I am saying that while BDS is not the cause of the Arab sanctions on Israel, BDS would like to expand the sanctions and have other countries join. And this would be bad for the world.
Were sanctions against South Africa back in the 1970s and 80s "collective punishment"?
Objection. Sustained. Irrelevant. I asked you to discuss the proposal on the merits. Terms like "collective punishment" and "war crimes" are not merits-based arguments, they are simply conclusions and accusations that are simply supposed to be assumed.
Collective punishment is forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention genius! It is also against basic human decency. But then again, it is not like you give a damn about either international humanitarian law or basic human decency as evident in your post.
NT authors have a few very distinctly different ideas on the matter.
What were some of these ideas?
You want divine intervention to have a girl leave her relationship and go with you. Doesn't seem like you have her interests in mind. Leave her alone and go find someone else.
A nice common sense response! Why things like this are even a question I don't know.
What would this map look like if cost of living is factored in, assuming that is possible?
Actually, they're not banning anything. They're requesting that ALL people, not just poor and middle class, be responsible for having sex. Be responsible for your actions. Is it your position that poor and middle class people aren't capable of responsibility or accountability for their actions? Are you claiming that poor and middle-class people are only capable of following what Democrats want? Why do you claim poor and middle-class people have no agency of their own? Do you believe poor and middle-class people can not think for themselves? See, there's the problem with the progressive democrat left. They feel that poor and middle-class people can not think for themselves. And are incapable of self-control and are not able to be responsible or accountable for what they do. Why are progressive Democrats so elitists to believe only their policies work? Even when the undeniable proof lays with holding people responsible and accountable for their actions.
"Are you claiming that poor and middle-class people are only capable of following what Democrats want?"
Are you sympathetic overall to people who engage in vigilantism? Just think about whether you would really want to live in a world where people can take the law into their own hands just because they morally disapprove of what others are doing. There is a reason why those who murder abortion providers are seen as extremists even by most anti-abortion people.
I am confused. Do you actually want the age of consent to be 18? In most jurisdictions that have such an age of consent, 19 year olds would not be able to have sex with 14 or 15 year olds without it being considered illegal. There isn't really as much room for flexibility when the legal age of consent to sexual activity is the same as the age of legal adulthood in most countries.
Many white Christians are used to being the face of America so to speak. They don't like the prospect of having to share the country with people who look different, speak a different language, and follow a different culture.
Bill gates was hoping the intentionally released covid killed many more
You really believe that?!
I used to fully buy into the idea that sex is only for man-woman marriage myself. But as I did my own research, I came to the conclusion that the cultural context which motivated the anti-fornication messages in the Bible is very different from the cultural context of today. Back in biblical times, it was not very common for people to date and have relationships with others before deciding to marry them. But, in the modern day, you basically have to go through the whole dating and relationship process if you want to get married unless you come from a cultural background like I do (Asian Indian Christian) where you don't. 95-99% of the time, this involves sexual activity. Since things have changed so much in the past 2000 years, maybe all the anti-fornication messages in the Bible have to be interpreted differently. That said, if you do decide to have sex, be sure to use protection. Also be aware that in some states, you or your potential partner are below the age of consent so you can end up in legal trouble if you act on your natural urges.
“Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.”
That is from the Old Testament, isn't it? Based on what happened at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, the apostles significantly reduced the amount of rules that believers had to follow. As a result, most of Mosaic Law was no longer applicable for new converts. If most of the Old Testament laws were invalidated in order to not burden the new converts, why can't the whole "no sex before man-woman marriage" standard be invalidated? After all, it is a standard that hardly anyone can meet in this day and age.
You don't want to play that game because many American states also have an HDI lower than Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates lol. The UAE is 0.911 and Riyadh in Saudi Arabia is 0.900. If the UAE was also divided by regions I am sure some would be much higher.
Aren't those countries only so developed because of a natural resource that starts with an "o" and ends with an "l"?
Mississippi is sometimes described as a "Third World state" yet its HDI is better than that of many countries in Eastern Europe.
If you ask me, there is nothing wrong with listening to secular music at all. Limiting yourself to religious music just reduces your exposure to reality for no real benefit aside from seeming "holier".